This is the PDF-Powerpoint I used for my online presentation at the Conference 'Current issues of social sciences and humanities', organised by the Department of Ethics and Aesthetics of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the National University of Uzbekistan, Tashkent, on Friday, 29 April 2022. My principal aim in this analysis is to describe Sen’s meditation as a teaching against fatalism, indifference, resignation and inaction: Sen’s criticism of these attitudes aims to uncover the deep roots of these attitudes themselves, since these attitudes conceal precise responsibilities.

Sen fights both in economics and in ethics against every form of concealing, under the idea of the unavoidability of nature, failures due to human mistakes. Unavoidable destiny proves to be, actually, as not so unavoidable as someone would like to present it. For instance, Sen’s opinion that famines are not a natural, but a social phenomenon aims to uncover all the attempts to present famines as something unavoidable, in relation to which the only solution is resignation. Sen’s intention is clearly to say that famines have precise responsibilities, and that those who present famines as natural phenomenon want to conceal their own responsibilities for the insurgence of famines. Governments try to blame on nature the cause of catastrophes, whereas the causes of social catastrophes are to be connected to the inefficiency of governments.

In particular, Iwould like to concentrate my exposition on the following themes: •Sen’s criticism of the thesis of food shortages as the (only) cause of famines.

• Famines happening when there is no political will that want to fight against the factors bringing to the famines. Persons, and not nature, are responsible for the occurring of famines.

• Sen’s defense of democracy as a system which is compatible with economic growth against all those who considers democracy as an obstacle to economic growth.

More Gianluigi Segalerba's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions